Obamacare, energy and more

Give Obamacare a chance

Roger Hedgecock (“Obamacare’s flaws,” Opinion, Jan. 29) must be from a different planet.

Because we didn’t have affordable health care for all, the waiting times at the emergency rooms have become atrocious. People without medical care would line up when they were desperate to get their care. This should diminish. Our premiums that have been paying for the uninsured should also go down, not up, because they now have insurance.

Another group that we’ve been paying higher premiums for are those who were refused insurance – you know, pre-existing conditions. This would be fine with the Republicans I suppose. Just throw them under the rug so that next time I need to go to the emergency room I have to wait hours to get care with my higher insurance premiums.

Affordable health care just makes sense. Now, the system is not perfect but it can be fixed, just like our tax codes. One piece at a time. Patience, cooperation, discussion and compromise – not back to where we were. – Howard Merriken, San Diego

There were many things wrong with this opinion piece which misrepresents the Affordable Care Act and are not true. One of the most repeated lies is the partial quote by Nancy Pelosi.

On March 9, 2010, in Washington, D.C., Pelosi was speaking to the Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties about the new health care bill and explaining the bill to them. As she finished she said: “We have to pass the bill so YOU can find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.” (Caps and italics are mine.) She did not say that Congress did not know what was in it.

Hedgecock goes on to say that no member of Congress read the whole thing through. False. That bill was read, dissected, argued over, changed and fought over more than any bill in recent history, and not only by members of Congress, but by the Congressional Budget Office, health care experts, policy wonks and pundits. And, Congress and the president are not exempt from participating in the ACA. As federal employees they will be required to purchase their health care insurance from the same pools as everyone else.

Throughout the essay, Mr. Hedgecock implies that no one wants to buy health Insurance and everyone is angry that they will be forced into buying it under the ACA. That is so far from the truth. People desperately want health coverage and are willing to pay for it if they can afford it. The state insurance exchanges will make that possible for most people. – Gaylon Monteverde, El Cajon

Goal of energy independence won’t happen

There’s a project called the Keystone Pipeline that would transport oil from Canada to Texas. The project would be a huge step toward energy independence. It would create thousands of jobs and prevent Canada’s oil from going to China. It probably isn’t going to happen because Obama doesn’t like oil and he’s trying to save the planet.

The Department of Energy was created to make the U.S. energy independent. After nearly 40 years of shuffling paper we are no closer to meeting that goal than we were in 1978. The president loves renewable energy (wind and solar) and proves it by spending billions subsidizing them in spite of the fact that they cannot meet our energy needs. Problem is the “greenies” don’t like fossil fuels or nuclear power and they own Mr. Obama. On another front, the EPA has taken aim at the coal-burning power stations and seems bent on putting them out of business.

Since DOE was created to achieve energy independence – and it’s not going to happen – let abolish it and save billions. Meanwhile, God will save the planet if it needs saving! – Bob Annett, La Mesa

California taxes reaching a tipping point

B. Chris Brewster’s comments (Letters, Jan. 29) that the studies on wealth migration by Varner and Young refute Alex Zikakis’ prediction that increased taxes do not impact relocation decisions completely ignores the work by Malcolm Gladwell regarding tipping points. The theory is that discreet changes do not necessarily cause changes in behavior but that, cumulatively, changes can cause massive alterations in behavior.

I suspect that the latest change, i.e., Prop. 30, will result in significant emigration from California. The cumulative effect of adding new taxes on an already high base will be the tipping point. I already know of three examples in my circle of friends. – Rick Firman, San Diego

I have another three to four years left in the work force.

While I am nowhere near the exalted income level of Phil Mickelson, the idea of boosting my retirement income 10 percent by the simple expedient of moving to Nevada with no state income tax has strong appeal. Indeed, the cost of living overall in Nevada is easily 30 percent less than here.

We love San Diego and we love California, but for any relationship to work there must give and take. Unfortunately, in California of late it has been all give. Prop. 30, while not affecting me personally, does affect the productive class that provides the jobs that feed government. My rough calculation indicates Prop. 30 added over a million dollars to Mickelson’s state tax bill. A million dollars buys you a princely lifestyle in Texas!

Sales taxes go in only one direction. I read of plans for new car taxes and a not-so-subtle assault on Proposition 13. Locally, I see my water rates will increase by another 10 percent in February. Electricity and propane are also more expensive. All this factors into the food chain leading to eye-popping increases for groceries. Just this morning my wife informs me, “Everything is priced another dollar at the store!”

An article I read says the cost of renting a 20-foot U-Haul trailer for the trip to Dallas from Southern California is $1,700. For the return, $650. Indeed, U-Haul has to pay drivers to drive empty trailers back to California just to get them back here!

Message to government at all levels here in California: You are in competition with the world and you are losing.

I got Vegas on my mind. – Paul B. Evans, Valley Center

Defending rights

I feel the president and the anti-gunners have really spoofed the public with this horrific shooting incident and are certainly not going to let this [Sandy Hook Elementary School] tragedy go by unexploited.

The public does not seem to understand that the issue is not just guns, but individual rights. No matter how you feel about guns personally or if you choose or do not choose to use your Second Amendment rights, they are in place for those who logically and legally qualify. The idea that banning certain guns will stop all school shootings is ludicrous. This very paper documented how hammers and blunt instruments were used in more murders than assault weapons in 2011. It has become the habit of those in power to let the tail wag the dog by letting the actions of criminals and the insane justify usurping the rights of all other lawful citizens.

The motives and goals of the president and the anti-gunners are as transparent as their logic to ban guns. I have watched the president obviously broken up about the shooting, but I have to ask myself these questions, “If he is really so upset about the deaths of these young children, where is his moral indignation and disgust and vows of action to overturn Roe vs Wade?,” a law that allows a woman to have the life inside of her ripped to pieces without that life having the ability to scream for mercy. What about knowingly allowing the selling of tobacco, which I feel is no more than a poison for profit with untold thousands of Americans dying each year from an assortment of tobacco-related illnesses. What about alcohol that is involved in a very high percentage of crime and health issues? Oh yeah, they did try a ban on that.

All of you who are so willing to let your Second Amendment right be snatched away by this government I have but one question, “What are you going to do when the government comes for your Fourth and First Amendment rights?” – Wayne Pratt, San Diego

As I review all the rhetoric about gun control, it seems that most of the discussion is more emotional than pragmatic. I am a major gun owner and longtime National Rifle Association member. There is nothing wrong with banning automatic rifles, 10-round limit for magazines and extensive improvements in background checks.

I seriously doubt that any mature and sensible gun owner would object to the proposals under discussion. What bothers me is the notion that these will be a cure all for the future. Almost anyone can get their hands on a gun. It is simply impossible to control that aspect of gun ownership. Just plain old vigilance on all quarters will go a long way to prevent future tragedies. – Rodgers T. Smith, El Cajon

Affording respect

In response to Sandra Chase (Letters Tues. Jan 29): She asks what I hope is a rhetorical question, “Should we be allowed to legally kill our teenagers.” Of course the answer is no. To equate an embryo with a teenager or any other viable person is scientifically nonsense.

I respect Sandra Chase’s right to choose whether or not to opt for an abortion if ever the need arose. I only wish she would afford other women the same respect. – Richard Susskind, Coronado